2. As to the grounds of appeal, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by the Defendants, while taking charge of the granting of subsidies to purchase the said harvested harvest season, while neglecting their duties to examine the said harvested harvest season of the subsidized applicants, and thereby, the State suffered damage equivalent to the amount of the subsidy paid.

However, the defendants are the first offender, the co-defendant A, and B of the court below who acquired subsidies, the entire amount of the subsidies to restore damage by depositing them for the nation, the defendant C misleads the above Gap to purchase the harvest season on the basis of the documents submitted by the above Gap and Eul, and there are circumstances to be taken into account the circumstances of the crime of this case as the defendant C committed the crime of this case passively according to the Gap's order, and for about 30 years, the defendant C faithfully worked as public officials for about 13 years, and the defendants had no profit gained from the crime of this case, and other various sentencing factors of Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the records of this case, such as age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing against the defendants is not justified.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals against the Defendants by the prosecutor are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.